text:
<< Previous Topic
Next Topic >>
Return to Index
Hand vs Bottom
June 23 2010 at 3:07 AM
This issue has probably been discussed on this message board because I would like to bring it up again. At some stage there seems to be a move towards caning a school pupil's hands rather than buttocks. I feel that as soon as the caning of buttocks was being questioned then we really should have seen a debate on whether school corporal punishment was needed in schools. As a recipient of hand caning I hated seeing the cane slicing down towards the palm of my hand and the awful sound it made and the swollen hands after the punishment. I suspect the lack of padding on the hands would have made the punishment more painful that being caned on the buttocks. I am interested to see if Doctor Dominum has any knowledge of when it was decided that hand caning was appropriate and the reasons behind the change.
Respond to this message
Re: Hand vs Bottom
June 23 2010, 8:58 AM
Caning hands is barbaric, strokes to the bottom are both safe and painful.
Anyone who advocates caning hands should think about what they are advocating
Re: Hand vs Bottom
June 23 2010, 10:47 AM
In England the move away from caning on the buttocks gained speed after about 1965. At least this was the case in schools that were completely controlled by the local education authority. This move started because of some concerns in public being expressed as to a sexual connection. At an annual headmasters meeting it was advised that caning be done on the hands rather than the buttocks.
This was not the case in church funded/controlled schools where the cane was still largely applied to the boys buttocks. it was felt the buttocks were a safer area to administer canings than the hands and the buttocks could be given a hard stroke generating the pain required,wihpot much risk of serious injury. Indeed, up to about 1975 it was fairly common for the boy to take it just on his pants or thin PE shorts, while at other times it was administered to the bare bottom.
In private schools, caning up until it was abolished was done mostly on the buttocks, which were often bared for the punishment. This was because private schools had a tradition of doing it on the bottom which was often bared. In private schools many of the pupoils fathers had attended the school, and in their days (1920/30) nearly all canings (which were fairly frequent) were administered to the buttocks which in most cases were bare. As it was alright then, parents regarded it as being alright later on for their sons that attended the school.
Doctor Dominum
Re: Hand vs Bottom
June 23 2010, 11:28 AM
I'm afraid that I can't be a great deal of help on this question. My experience of corporal punishment comes from a state where corporal punishment in private schools generally involved (and involves) caning on the bottom, and where corporal punishment in state schools involved the strap across the hand, a decision that was taken at the end of the nineteenth century (well, before even I had any knowledge of what was going on). Here at least, the reason for the decision to punish on the hands was because they decided to copy the common practice of Scotland, because this was seen (rightly or wrongly - I am told wrongly) as the mildest form of corporal punishment available, and it was a compromise between those who wanted a total ban and those who wanted retention.
I know a reasonable amount about corporal punishment practices in the rest of the country, but really only since the 1960s or so, by which time the decision to cane on the hand had already been taken in those states where that was the practice here.
My guess is that it was due to concerns about modesty or similar. But that's only a guess.
Ben Howard
Re: Hand vs Bottom
June 23 2010, 11:28 AM
Thankfully i was never caned on the hands, only a couple of sharpe raps with a ruler to each hand in primary school which at aged 9/10 was bad enough. The cane was in use at my senior grammar school but it was always given to a lads bottom which although very painfull to those on the receiving end did not do any lasting damage. During my five years or so i was caned 4 times by the headmaster sure a very scary and painfull experience but usually deserved and in my case always deserved.
It was part of the disciplinary system and was accepted as such, no boy wanted to be caned but if the occasion arose, well too bad you just had to deal with it as you got no help from your parents on the matter as they agreed with it being used if you misbehaved etc and would fully supported the headmaster using it as it was whenever i found myself in that situation.
Seeing what we have now as a disciplnary system am certain it was a backward step to do away with it and rather surprisingly even quite a good number of teens today would rather see it back and in use as opposed to the soft oftions given out today, suspensions and all that, when a quick 4 or 6 of the best the matter was dealt with very little expense to the education budget
Re: Hand vs Bottom
June 23 2010, 11:58 AM
In England the move away from caning on the buttocks gained speed after about 1965. At least this was the case in schools that were completely controlled by the local education authority. This move started because of some concerns in public being expressed as to a sexual connection.
George sorry but you aren't correct.
I was at a school (state ) that in 1968 decided that in addition to caning boys now girls would be caned as well. No one, I repeat no one, was caned on the hands both boys and girls were caned on their bottoms. As far as sexual connections any one who has ever had six of the best who finds it seuxal must be on a different planet to the resst of us.
If you consider cp a reasonable punishment then it must be administered to a safe part of the body, you can cane a boy or girl quite hard on the bottom and cause no more than transitory damage,something that you can't do to the hands.
American Way
Re: Hand vs Bottom
June 25 2010, 5:31 PM
Hand vs bottom FYI. I take it they consider the seat of wisdom for folly is needed as a child grows older.
Opinion time from mambers of this estimable Forum. This vintage photo is based on fetish and not reality but what would be the provenance. Is this an example of the English vice?
My own experience in Catholic High School was the students being sent to the blackboard, called chalkboard now, to solve an algebra problem and the girls being hit in the back of the exposed legs with a pointer.
This picture brought tantalizing memories of the days of yore. Boys never got it for their legswere protected Now they have programs to address math anxiety for girls. This is and having doing algebra with the nun hitting the calves of girls. Do you think it came from 1926?
Dean Clarke
Re: Hand vs Bottom
June 27 2010, 3:24 AM
Hi Nteedee,
I've noticed from the survey thread that you went to school in Sydney. As indicated by other replies, the question you're asking has different answers in different places, but I can actually give you a bit of an explanation as to what happened in New South Wales specifically.
As you grew up in Sydney, I'm sure you have heard of Fort Street High School. Fort Street was established in 1849 as the Fort Street Model School - the first government school in Australia. Quite controversially for the time, it was a coeducational school. It's name referred to the fact that it was intended to be the 'model' for other government schools. It's first Headmaster was a man imported from England, William Wilkins (his wife was intended to be his deputy as Headmistress, but died in childbirth during the voyage to Australia) who had been specifically selected because of his 'modern' approach to education (he was only 22 at the time he was chosen, and only 24 when he took up his post). He decided that at Fort Street, girls would not be caned, and the cane should only be used with boys rarely and in a moderate form - he introduced caning on the hand right from the start. It should be understood, that in the schools that existed prior to Fort Street - the 'denominational schools' run by the Churches, and the early Great Public Schools (of which Kings is the only survivor), corporal punishment often took the form of canings across the bare backside, or birching. This was something he wanted to avoid spreading into the new National Schools. This was also the very tail end of the convict era in New South Wales history (transportation of convicts had been suspended in 1840 for ten years, and would be abolished in 1850) which meant attitudes towards corporal punishment in general terms were still informed by the up to 500 lash public floggings that were well within living memory. Corporal punishment in some schools had become fairly brutal at times as well in this atmosphere.
And as Fort Street was the model, his ideas became the standard in government schools in New South Wales - from 1854, he was the Inspector of schools, and he made sure his methods were followed in the other schools that were being established. And as time went on, he became progressively even more powerful. When he retired in 1884, he was the most powerful public servant in the Department of Education, and when it came to government schools, his word was, almost literally, law. And that meant that the corporal punishment of girls was against policy, and policy said boys should only be caned on the hand. It also meant that the use of corporal punishment was to be restricted only to the most senior teachers in a school.
The thing is, once he retired, a lot of people and schools almost immediately started moving away from his practices. There was a perception in the educational community that under his leadership, education had stagnated for 15 years (in essence, the 'official' verdict was that he'd built a decent school system from 1850-1870, and from then on it had been allowed to stagnate and decay. His extremely centralised administration was largely dismantled and schools were given more autonomy and freedom. And some Headmasters began to use corporal punishment in different ways from the standard (some always had, actually, but now they no longer had to be as careful about ensuring WW didn't find out). In particular, some began 'caning in the fashion of the Great Public Schools' which meant they were caning on the bottom. And as education became compulsory, the caning of girls was sanctioned - in the beginning at least, it was meant to only be used with incorrigible girls who could no longer be told to simply leave the school if they did not behave. The only one of Wikin's rules on corporal punisment that remain in general use was the idea that corporal punishment should only be used by senior teachers - even that wasn't perfectly followed, but it remained the general rule.
So, from the late 19th century, through the early 20th century, there was a certain degree of official conflict and tension around the use of corporal punishment in schools. You had one camp of teachers and bureaucrats who believed the William Wilkins approach had been the good one and should still be treated as standard - boys caned on the hand, girls not caned at all - and others who were quite happy to see both boys and girls caned, some on the hand, some on the bottom. There was also the fact that, despite the Fort Street co-educational model, as secondary schools (as opposed to primary) were established, they were nearly single sex schools (at least in Sydney - somewhat less true in the country). Fort Street, itself, was split into a boys school and a girls school in 1911.
What eventually developed by about World War I, was a government system of coeducational primary schools (where corporal punishment was used with both boys and girls), and single sex high schools (where corporal punishment was virtually universal in the boys schools, and very rare in the girls schools). Boys schools had Headmasters, girls schools had Headmistresses, and things were pretty separate.
And then c1920, they stated building large coeducational high schools in Sydney, and this created some new issues.
Headmasters were appointed to run the coeducational schools (Headmistresses were considered fine when it came to girls schools, but not for boys schools or coeducational schools). As common practice required corporal punishment be used only by senior teachers, this created a specific issue to be addressed in these new schools - if older girls were to be caned (especially if they were to be caned on the bottom) it was considered undesirable that it be done by a man. But appointing a female teacher to do it, meant automatically declaring her to be a senior teacher - and other male teachers in the school often had strong objections to a teacher with no more experience than themselves being so designated (if the senior female teacher in a school had 8 years experience, for example - and as it was still normal practice to leave teaching once you were married, that wasn't uncommon, men with 20 years experience would not be happy if a decision was made that made her look more senior than them - if you authorised a woman with 8 years experience to cane the girls, it was hard to then not authorise every man with 8 or more years experience as well - but doing that lead to more teachers being authorised than the department was happy with, was also seen by some Headmasters as diminishing their own authority). The union got involved quite quickly and issued its own guidelines to deal with corporal punishment - it recommended to its members that girls over 12 should not be caned (which reduced the pressure to appoint a female teacher as senior simply because there was a need to have somebody to cane the girls, which meant female teachers could be appointed on their own merits), but that if it did happen, girls should only be caned on the hand, which meant that in (what were assumed to still be rare cases when caning a girl was necessary) a Headmaster could do it without the risk of impropriety. These were union guidelines, not rules, but through the 1930s, more and more schools began adopting them.
Then we get to World War II.
In 1941, a Labor government was elected in New South Wales. A man named Clive Evatt (he was the younger brother of the much more famous Bert Evatt) who had been a pupil at Fort Street became the Minister of Education. One of his most decisive acts as Minister, was to suddenly abolish corporal punishment from New South Wales schools - over the objection of his Premier and most of the Cabinet. He was removed from office shortly thereafter, but his successor had to deal with the fact that the teachers union had thoroughly approved of Evatt's radical reforms (they didn't generally agree with the abolition of corporal punishment, but they did agree with attempts he was making to free them from pay based on inspection and similar) and to maintain peace with the union, accepted a lot of their ideas as educational department policy - including promulgating the union standard (corporal punishment to be applied with a cane to the palm on the hand, and not used at all on girls over 12) as the official regulations on corporal punishment in state schools. These regulations weren't always followed over the subsequent decades (if parents didn't complain, a teacher could get away with breaking them) but they remained the standard until the 1980s.
Caned Hands
June 28 2010, 12:38 AM
Thanks for the informative history behind caning on the hands. As I mentioned in my post I was caned 3 times during my schooling, twice in primary school and once in high school. In 1986 my school sent around a survey for parents asking for responses to the use of corporal punishment. I attended a state high school in Sydney's western suburbs and around this time the abolition of school corporpal punishment was on the agenda.
My father ticked the box indicating that he supported the continued use of the cane to boys and girls in both primary and secondary schools but my mother did not support the use of the cane for primary school children but she supported its use in high schools but to boys only. The survey was on a yellow piece of paper and my parents had to sign it but I cannot remember if my sister took it back to school or they posted it. The result was that school corporal punishment disappeared in 1986 but it was returned in 1988 by the then Minister for Education.
My last caning was in 1986 when my friend and I were caned by our Deputy Headmaster (Mr Petherbridge) for truanting science. We received 3 strokes on each hand and he added an afternoon detention to our punishment. I remember waiting outside the Deputy Headmaster's office hearing the cracking of the cane on my friends hand. We ran our hands under the cold water after our punishment and by the time I was getting on the bus after my detention the pain in my hands and abated to a dull throb, but I still had feint outlines on the palms of my hands where the cane had struck.
Re: Hand vs Bottom
June 29 2010, 1:19 PM
In England, local regulations often said that a lighter cane was to be used on girls and junior school boys, but a heavier cane could be used on older boys. (This seems to be the only real life basis for the stories about "junior" "senior" and "super-large" canes in fetish stories and old comic strips.) Quite often, it seemed that boys and juniors got caned on the hands, but older boys got it on the bum. This couldn't have been just about modesty - most people would think that older children had more right to modesty than younger ones. I have often wondered whether some headmasters felt that the "junior" cane didn't sting enough through clothes to be a worthwhile punishment, and started applying it to the hands instead. (The same regulations banned pants-down caning: this doesn't mean that it never, ever happened, of course.) The "senior" cane still hurt through clothes, so older boys got their behinds whacked.
People who think that hand caning was dangerous may be imagining people being caned with the "heavy" cane; where I think that the "junior" canes were light, whippy things. Hand canings were very common in state school, but there don't seem to have been many cases of boys being injured: if there had been, you can be STOPP would have publicized it.
Happy to say I never got the cane at either end, but a boy showed me his hands after being whacked for putting a stink-bomb in a classroom, and there were no lines or bruises so it can't have been very severe: I get the impression it was a brief, intense "ouch!" and then all over!
Re: Hand vs Bottom
June 29 2010, 8:46 PM
. You said above:
Happy to say I never got the cane at either end
Oh joy, oh joy! Great to find that after years of loneliness and isolation I am not the only one in that category on this estimable Forum after all!
Alan Turing
Lonely uncaned Lurker?
June 29 2010, 9:33 PM
Great to find that after years of loneliness and isolation I am not the only one in that category on this estimable Forum after all!
But, my dear Sir, I'm also in that category
1. Even though I don't have a beard.
Re: Hand vs Bottom
June 30 2010, 12:25 AM
Happy to say I never got the cane at either end
Oh joy, oh joy! Great to find that after years of loneliness and isolation I am not the only one in that category on this estimable Forum after all!
Well, of course, when I say "happy"....
Re: Hand vs Bottom
June 30 2010, 1:32 AM
Hi Beanokid,
I was a member of a University department which , through some research became embroiled in a debate over caning in the local schools. I have written about this in detail before, but, the relevant issue is the size of the canes.
During the arguments over this one staff member actually attended our department and brought his cane with him , he said he would demonstrate its force if there were volunteers. Three postgraduates, including myself were prepared to take one stroke. We did. Frankly it stung like hell and in each case left a severe bruise for the best part of a week . I was less lucky than the other two and part of my bruising was blood blister. He seemed to hit similarly to Mrs BB comments on another thread today, with as much force as possible without straining.
The point however was that I'm pretty sure these canes were never intended for hand use, and that explained the furor that had been created locally. They were full size full diameter canes .I would , have suggested they were over 3 foot, and not terribly flexible but memory can be faulty .STOPP were involved in the initial complaints which precipitated this .
A few months later I took up a post as a 'stand in ' at a local comprehensive, again I have written of this before . At the time I taught what was a heavy caning school, in my view to an abusive degree creating a climate of fear amongst perfectly ordinary pupils. , but their canes ( again used on the hand) were shorter and thinner not more than 1/4 inch I suspect by perhaps 30 inches or a little shorter.However the cane was so overused I did not and would not cane in that environment.After surviving two weeks as cover , I was offered a full time job, I politely refused! Glad to say it was closed and reorganized a few years later.
At the time the talk of the staff room was that one boy's family were legally represented and making a claim against the leas for a broken digit due to hand caning. The case was settled with a payment and a gagging order. My colleagues said this was not the first time this had happened. I cannot comment other than this hearsay.
But on the test at the university, I certainly was of the opinion that if this was repeated up to six times, the bruising would be substantial as a very minimum.All the schools I'm referring to were secondary schools , of course. I suspect that if this type of practice had been common , the practice would have died out much quicker.
Bruising on the hands
June 30 2010, 1:50 AM
When I was caned on my hands my hands were red and slightly swollen but there was no bruising. The marks on my palms consisted of a a red outline where the cane had struck and were usually diagonal across the palm. My Headmaster caned me across my finger tips which hurt significantly more than across the palms of the hands. The difference was that he would order you to hold out our right hand and give you one stroke, then order to hold out your left hand and give you the second stroke. He caned your hands alternately so that you felt the full pain of each stroke on your hands. I think that this method would be in line with caning the buttocks where I heard that some Headmasters would leave a 3-4 second pause between strokes so that the recipient would feel the full pain of each stroke.
Re: Hand vs Bottom
June 30 2010, 2:52 PM
Frankly it stung like hell and in each case left a severe bruise for the best part of a week . I was less lucky than the other two and part of my bruising was blood blister.
I have been thinking about this episode since you last wrote about it. I think you were unfortunate as I have come across no other example of such an injury happening with a single stroke. It would be interesting to know where the blood blister formed. Perhaps the ball of the thumb (thenar eminence) or the base of the index finger?
Possibly you were hit by the tip of the cane, which can be a bit sharp if not rounded off or perhaps you had a previous injury you were not aware of?
Looking at the other posts here, I think it is quite wrong to hit the fingers, although I think the palm is a legitimate target, as it has been for at least 2000 years. I am sure it is just as horrible an experience now as it was then.
I have however been persuaded by other contributors that a flatter implement similar to a ruler or a strap is preferable to a cane. It is unlikely to cause damage, is easier to land accurately and is highly effective.
Re: Lonely uncaned Lurker?
June 30 2010, 10:27 PM
Alan Turing
. In response to my expressed joy when Beanokid's revelation indicated that I was not alone on this estimable Forum in never having been caned you said:
But, my dear Sir, I'm also in that category!
Of course! How could I have let a momentary inattention so confuse my thoughts! I am deeply grateful for your reassurance. I have always known that we were linked by more than merely that:
We may both owe our presence here to the misfortunes of a female classmate involved in an encounter with a slipper - or then again we may not
We both think that Fun Pesters
should be persecuted to the ends of the earth and beyond, yea unto the third, or even unto the fourth, generation
We collaborate excellently in such unlikely projects as the construction of improbable structures in Melton Mowbray and micro-navigation on the streets of Stockholm, with you providing the Mathematical expertise and me providing a certain dogged persistence
We can be just a teeny touch competitive regarding one another's posts. Nothing unpleasant you understand, just a touch of healthy oneupmanship
Even though you don't have a beard. Have you ever thought of growing one?
The term 'Fun Pester' is © Your Local Council.
Re: Hand vs Bottom
June 30 2010, 10:42 PM
Hi HCJ
Nothing really to differ with at all with in your post.
I suspect it was probably the tip of the cane, and yes, you are correct the blister was on the ball of the thumb. The rest of the mark was clear for a good few days, following the usual course.
As I said before my own suspicion is that this issue arose because of the use of inappropriate canes on the hand.The issue involved a group of contiguous schools which was how it was identified at the time as a 'hot spot'.
The experiment was intended to show that any bruising was minor and short lived . For once empiricism, in all three cases, demonstrated the opposite to the hypothesis! It couldn't be repeated, because after us three postgraduates, there were no more willing guinea pigs!
Re: Hand vs Bottom
July 1 2010, 6:24 AM
This topic does seem to have spread over a few threads, but the title of this one is more direct.
There is no doubt that caning on the bottom is far safer. I'm not sure if I could cane anyone on the hand, I'm sure I'd be very nervous in case I didn't hit the palm, and that fact in itself might make it easier to miss the target. Having said that I'm not aware of any incident at my school where pupils were caned on the fingers rather than the palm. We did have a deputy head for a while who caned on the bottom , possibly he too was nervous about missing the target.I did once give a girl at work a couple of token smacks on the hand with a ruler, though this was from very short distance and there was no possibility of clipping her fingers. It was done in fun though.
As for volunteering to be punished to find out the effects, I did slipper a girl at school who wanted to know whether it hurt. I would have been 13/14 and had recently been slippered myself in full view of many girls. After school one day we went back to her house and she asked me whether the slipper hurt. I cannot remember whether I first suggested that I slipper her or she did, but she certainly wanted to be slippered.
I think I must have used her school gym shoe, and she quite willingly bent over for two quite hard smacks. She squealed and did a war dance around the room. I think her comment was to the effect that it hurt much more than she thought it would.There were two other girls present and they both declined a slippering, though one of these girls was slippered for real at school some time later, and may even have been caned, she certainly got into plenty of trouble.
Cane on hands
July 10 2010, 4:54 PM
Cane on hands was a stupid thing as it carried the highest risk of injury.
The hand has thin skin with many tendons and delicate bones and joints.
The level of pain from a heavy Lochgelly Tawse is just as or more severe and carried a lot less risk of a lasting injury.
The Cane is the impliment to be given across the Buttocks as that area, due its thick skin and muscle can withstand a lot of punishment without risk of lasting injury.
Like wise, the Tawse can be applied across the buttocks with equal effect and little risk of damage.
I attended Schools in Scotland and England and sampled both Tawse and Cane but never experienced
the Cane on the hand i`m happy to say.
A thin whippy Rattan applied with zeal across the buttocks was an experience only those who got it can explain.
The Tawse was just as devastating on either hands or buttocks.
In Scotland it was not normal practice to apply the Tawse to the buttocks but i went on and i know as i and most of my freinds, received many a private after hours lashing across thin satin Gym shorts from 2 very CP driven Gym Masters.Walking after that was painfull never mind the scorched bottom cheeks.
In England i was caned mostly over my trousers and pants but again there were times when that approach was ignored.
Comparing both i would say Scotland used CP more than England but that can`t be known overall.
Edward Bear
Re: Hand vs Bottom
October 7 2010, 4:36 PM
At NZ primary schools the strap, a piece of leather about two feet long and three to four inches wide and approximately 1/4 inch thick was applied mostly to the hands. It was usually applied in front of the class of boys and girls. Girls were sent to a female teacher, if the teacher was a male, but the female teachers strapped both boys and girls. Some parents opted to have their sons punished on the buttocks, one of my friend's were a case in point. My friend used to follow the teacher into the corridor where he would be made to bend over and the strap was applied to the seat of his shorts. The reason given was because he played the piano.
Intermediate schools I attended two as my parents shifted to another town the strap was still used. It was at the second school that I got my first strapping for going out of bounds. I got four, two on each palm. I hated that, possibly because I could see the strap drawn up over the teacher's shoulder before it was lashed down onto my palm. It took a great deal of will power to keep holding the palm out at the required height for the next stroke. As I didn't know how many I was to get, I think I was quite relieved when after the second stroke I was told to hold out my right hand for what turned out to be two more strokes.
High schools mostly caned the buttocks of boys only. Some high schools used straps on the palms or buttocks. The high school I attended was co ed, but only boys were caned. . In the third form at age 13, I got two, two stroke canings and one three stroke caning. One of the two stroke canings was for not completing my homework properly, the other being seen in the street without my cap on. The three stroke caning was for playing the fool in class after being warned twice to carry on with my work.
In the fourth form I got one three stroke caning and one four stroke caning. The three stroke caning was for not doing my math homework for the second time in a week, ( I hated math) and the four stroke caning which I got along with a friend, just before we both turned 15, was for using the F word which was a big no no in 1958. It was very painful experience and I had tears in my eyes when told to stand up. My friend also shed tears, but neither of us yelled. After being released we rushed to the loos andcompared marks. Both of us were just about bleeding and the caning was over flannel shorts and underpants. The marks were still quite clear for two weeks, but then faded rapidly the third week. When I had been caned before the wealds only stayed for about a week.
Ted B
Re: Hand vs Bottom
October 8 2010, 7:04 PM
I have received both and still have damaged hand 20 years later it has to be the bottom everytime
Re: Hand vs Bottom
October 10 2010, 2:37 PM
I was never caned at school but I really don't like the thought of anyone being caned on the hands. Most teachers were probably not all that accurate with a cane, and a hand isn't a large target like the bottom. Being caned across the fingers must have been really agonizing, and it must have carried some risk of injury, especially if the recipient had moved the hand just before the cane landed.
Caning on the bottom is both safe and (by all accounts) very painful, so why do it any other way?
Nelly from Lochgelly
Hand Vs Bottom
October 10 2010, 6:28 PM
In Scotland the tawse (belt or strap) was invariably applied up the length of the outstreached hand, either a single hand held out to the front with palm and fingers held flat and thumb tucked in, or "crossed hands" where both hands were held out to the front with one supporting the other. The teacher stood in front of the pupil in order to administer the belt in a powerful downward swing from over his/her shoulder and so the sight of the belt being applied was fully visible to the pupil. This added to the stress of the situation, having to keep the hands steady while the belt flashed downwards to chastise the hand while also enduring the sudden and exquisite pain as the thick and heavy leather tails lashed the hand. The natural reaction would be to pull the hands away as the tawse came down, but to do so could lead to additional strokes being administered.
Until the 1950's Scottish teachers were permitted to belt across clothed buttocks, but in all my years I witnessed this only once. A boy was found to have stolen a rubber and was ordered to bend over the teacher's chair while she administered two strokes of her belt across his trousered buttocks. The whole class was very surprised to see this, belting on the hands happened many times each day, but not belting on the bottom.
The Scottish tawse is very much more severe than its English, Australian or Canadian cousins. It is made from high quality dense and stiff leather, very heavy and cut from thick leather 8mm to 12mm thick, about 2 feet long and uniquely designed with two fairly narrow tails intended to administer the most painful of stinging punishments to the unprotected palm and fingers. The pain caused by it is intense for 15 to 30 minutes causing deep and throbbing pain before fading slightly over the next half hour.
The Scottish tawse does not have the hardness and stiffness of a typical school rattan school cane and, as a result, its supple nature means that it can chastise the hands and deliver excruciating pain without any fear of damage. The hands would quickly redden as they were belted and, if a severe 4 or 6 stroke punishment was being administered, may cause some swelling or bruising but there was no lasting marking or damage.
From the late 1800's, in mixed sex classes in particular, it was not considered appropriate that the buttocks be punished. There were questions of modesty and the possibility of a sexual element to such a punishment and the practice was first discouraged and, from the late 1950's, banned. Punishments were normally administerd by the class teacher in front of the class, it being thought that by doing so both the miscreant and the class itself would learn a lesson.
Unlike in England where the gymshoe was widely used for the punishment of less serious offences and the cane for serious infringements, in Scotland the tawse was used to punish all classes of offence from the most minor to the most serious. The severity of the punishment was dictated by the weight of the strap used, the effort put behind the application of the strokes and the number of strokes administered. A normal punishment was one or two strokes with a medium or heavy weight school strap, but it could increase up to 6 strokes with an extra heavy strap where an exceptionally severe punishment was deemed appropriate.
Not that big?
October 10 2010, 9:22 PM
Edward Bear wrote:
At NZ primary schools the strap, a piece of leather about
two feet long and three to four inches wide and approximately 1/4 inch thick
was applied mostly to the hands.
Edward, please check your metric to imperial conversion. A strap with these dimensions scarcely seems practical. It is too wide.
The North Canterbury Education Boards 1894 regulations stated that both boys and girls could be coporally punished. Neither head nor neck could be touched and canes and sticks were banned in favour of a regulation strap. This was to be at least one and a half inches in breadth and could be no more than 25 inches in length, a quarter of an inch in thickness and four and three quarter ounces in weight. This is a very formidable strap. One school committee wrote that they had not found need for such a large strap.
A post 1962 Education Board bylaw specified: Corporal punishment, when used, shall be inflicted with a natural leather strap (undivided) not exceeding l8 inches in length and not less than 1½ inches in width and on the palm of the hand. Punishment with any other instrument, or with the hand, or on any other part of the body is expressly forbidden.
I note that "natural" bovine leather is never as thick as 1/4 inch. Leather can be "filled" to this thickness or used double thickness.
18 inches is convenient for use on the hands but rather short if applied to the buttocks.
Re: Hand vs Bottom
October 10 2010, 11:41 PM
Being caned across the fingers must have been really agonizing, and it must have carried some risk of injury, especially if the recipient had moved the hand just before the cane landed.
I got it on my hand once and it was far more painful than the subsequent times when I got it across my bum.
also reported a hand injury
Caning on the bottom is both safe and (by all accounts) very painful, so why do it any other way?
Caning on the hand seems to have been more common for girls. The excuse often given was that it was less humiliating and avoided sexual overtones. For those reasons, in many schools that allowed CP for girls, they were caned in private and only by female teachers.
Boys weren't entitled to such considerations and were caned in front of the class by teachers of either sex. Although the intention was probably to treat girls better than boys, the reality was the opposite. Girls got a more painful caning (on the hand) and often had to endure an agonizing wait to get it.
Edward Bear
Re: Hand vs Bottom
October 11 2010, 4:14 PM
You may well be right in your quoted dimensions. I was going on memory possibly a little rosie coloured since I was strapped in 1956. All I do remember clearly is that my whole palm was left red and sore. We had to hold our palms out at shoulder height, straight out at the side.
While talking about the size of instruments of correction, canes used when I was at high school 1957 -59 were heavier and longer than those used later, so I would guess that maybe the straps were also.
There was a NZ famous headmaster of Rongotai College (Boys only) in Wellington who video taped himself caning the backsides of 25 boys. The reason he gave the press was because canes used nowdays (late 70s early 80s) were lighter than those used before and fluttered in flight causing boys to have embarrissing marks if they were wearing brief shorts. (This is covered on Corpun's site.) I met Mr Mackay at a function and he was shorter than I at about 5 feet 5, I am 5 feet 8. The boys from Rongatai College were always neat and tidy and very polite. I worked with a couple of "old boys" in Wellington. By the way the press assured the reading public that the tape had been destroyed.
Ted B
Nelly from Lochgelly
Hands Vs Bottom
October 11 2010, 6:11 PM
The effectiveness of the belt is not determined by size. Wider tails tend to spread the sting making the sting less intense. Too light a strap (the official Nottingham school strap was around 60 grams)will be ineffective again leading to a lack of sufficient severity to really drive the message home. Too short a strap will have reduced velocity at the tail ends, again reducing its effect. Cutting to the ideal length, weight, width and length of tails and type of leather used was the work of an expert and experienced saddler.
Re: Hand vs Bottom
October 11 2010, 8:18 PM
I got it on my hand once and it was far more painful than the subsequent times when I got it across my bum.
Yes I can quite believe that.
Caning on the hand seems to have been more common for girls. The excuse often given was that it was less humiliating and avoided sexual overtones. For those reasons, in many schools that allowed CP for girls, they were caned in private and only by female teachers.
Boys weren't entitled to such considerations and were caned in front of the class by teachers of either sex. Although the intention was probably to treat girls better than boys, the reality was the opposite. Girls got a more painful caning (on the hand) and often had to endure an agonizing wait to get it.
I think it was always good policy for pupils to be given CP only by teachers of the same sex anyway. I think it was equally undesirable for boys to be slippered/caned by female teachers and for girls to be slippered/caned by male teachers. And I think you have pointed out in a previous thread that female teachers often slippered and caned harder than their male counterparts anyway!
Nevertheless, if girls were given CP over their skirts (as happened at your school), I can't see that there would have been any real sexual overtones in that case even if a male teacher were involved - unless of course the girl was wearing a very short and revealing skirt, as you did sometimes!
Actually I suspect that it would have been mainly in all-girls schools where CP was given over the knickers rather than skirts, as no invidious comparisons could be made between the treatment of the sexes in those schools. But in that case, the teachers would presumably also have been female, so hopefully there would have been no question of sexual overtones arising. (Well, I suppose there could have been a few lesbian teachers who might have got some kind of perverse sexual kick from slippering teenaged girls over their knickers, but at least one hopes they would not have become cane-wielding headmistresses.)
That official Nottingham school strap.
October 11 2010, 8:48 PM
Nelly from Lochgelly
. You say:
the official Nottingham school strap was around 60 grams
Interesting! I started school near Nottingham in 1947, I went to secondary school in Nottingham, and I've lived round Nottingham most of my life, but I've never heard of an 'official Nottingham school strap'. Any further information/authoritative references gratefully received.
Re: Hand vs Bottom
October 12 2010, 2:13 AM
I think it was always good policy for pupils to be given CP only by teachers of the same sex anyway.
I'm not sure about that. Classroom slipperings were a very quick and effective way to deal with minor misbehaviour in class. If you prohibit cross-sex CP, such punishments become impractical. Pupils of the opposite sex to the teacher would have to be sent to a teacher of the same sex to be punished. That reduces the overall effect by removing the immediacy. When CP is given by appointment (as in being sent to the Head. for the cane) then it could be administered by a teacher of the same sex but, quite honestly, I don't think it should be necessary. I think a witness of the opposite sex to the (head)teacher wielding the cane might be desirable though. I also believe that, when a group misbehaves together, they should be punished together and all should be punished by the same (head)teacher. Where the group comprises both sexes, that would mean some would be punished by a member of the opposite sex. When my boyfriend and I were caned for being caught "out of bounds"
I think it would have been far worse, cruel even, for us to have been caned separately.
I think it was equally undesirable for boys to be slippered/caned by female teachers and for girls to be slippered/caned by male teachers. And I think you have pointed out in a previous thread that female teachers often slippered and caned harder than their male counterparts anyway!
Certainly if male teacher are to be prohibited from corporeally punishing girls, the female teachers must also be prohibited from corporeally punishing boys. A year or so ago, I have agreed that both are
undesirable, but only for a very low value of "undesirable". I've since become aware of some female teachers taking great delight in beating boys. It seems considerably more common than male teachers abusing their power although that might just be because they would be less likely to get away with it. In light of that, now I'd be more cautious about allowing female teachers to corporeally punish boys than allowing male teachers to corporeally punish girls. You are correct that I have said female teachers seemed to slipper harder than male teachers. I don't know if that's true in general but, if it is, prohibiting cross-sex punishments could be unfair to girls.
Nevertheless, if girls were given CP over their skirts (as happened at your school), I can't see that there would have been any real sexual overtones in that case even if a male teacher were involved - unless of course the girl was wearing a very short and revealing skirt, as you did sometimes!
I chose to wear a short skirt. You can't blame the teacher for my decision to break the rules regarding skirt length so it shouldn't be allowed to interfere with his administering a legitimate punishment. If he got some thrill from slippering my when I was wearing a short skirt then, provided the punishment was fair for whatever I'd done, I can't reasonably complain.
(Well, I suppose there could have been a few lesbian teachers who might have got some kind of perverse sexual kick from slippering teenaged girls over their knickers, but at least one hopes they would not have become cane-wielding headmistresses.)
Homosexuality rather blurs the line regarding same/cross sex punishments. Should homosexual teachers be allowed to corporeally punish pupils of their own sex or only those of the opposite sex? Perhaps the question we should ask is "should cross-gender (rather than cross-sex) punishments be allowed?"
Re: Hand vs Bottom
October 12 2010, 7:57 AM
I was caned by both male a females.
At primary school the canings were instantaneous in most cases, and was administered in front of the whole class by whomsoever the teacher was. Mainly female, now theres a surprise in primary education.
At secondary school all canings were witnessed. The head being male (naturally) and the secretary being female ( obviously).
When being caned it never occurred to me that either the person who had requested it, or the people who administered or witnessed it could or would derive any prurient interest in my being caned. My only concern was how many strokes, and how much it was going to hurt.
As far as the hands versus bottom is concerned it is obviously preferable to cane someones bottom as I posted previously.
On the question of equality I cant see how receiving a caning over a pair of tightly stretched trousers, and you were made to stretch them tight, even during your punishment, can compare to being caned over a loose heavy skirt ?
For my part had I been instructed to hold out my hand or hands for them to be caned I would have refused, regardless of the consequences. I have though been made to bend over a chair, desk, and touch my toes, all of which I complied with.
Hands v Bottom
October 12 2010, 3:04 PM
I would never consider caning anyone on the hand due to the possibility of injury. I have carried out a few fun canings and have always caned bottoms.
On the question of girls tending to be caned on their hands one wonders if any serious injuries occurred due to mis-hits.
If the cane was in use today, perhaps the problem would not arise due to girls wearing trousers to school. There would not be a problem in girls bending over in their trousers and receiving the cane across their bottoms like the boys. All the issues about raising skirts, exposing underwear etc would not arise. The equality issues would also be solved!
Perhaps Jenny would have a view on girls being caned over trousers.
Re: Hand vs Bottom
October 12 2010, 5:06 PM
I'm not sure about that. Classroom slipperings were a very quick and effective way to deal with minor misbehaviour in class. If you prohibit cross-sex CP, such punishments become impractical. Pupils of the opposite sex to the teacher would have to be sent to a teacher of the same sex to be punished. That reduces the overall effect by removing the immediacy.
Yes I see your point - as far as a quick slippering in class is concerned, it's obviously better to get it out of the way and get on with the lesson.
When CP is given by appointment (as in being sent to the Head. for the cane) then it could be administered by a teacher of the same sex but, quite honestly, I don't think it should be necessary. I think a witness of the opposite sex to the (head)teacher wielding the cane might be desirable though.
Yes I think that would definitely be a minimum requirement.
I also believe that, when a group misbehaves together, they should be punished together and all should be punished by the same (head)teacher. Where the group comprises both sexes, that would mean some would be punished by a member of the opposite sex. When my boyfriend and I were caned for being caught "out of bounds" I think it would have been far worse, cruel even, for us to have been caned separately.
I'm not sure I follow you here. Why would it have been worse, and even cruel, to be caned separately? You wouldn't necessarily have had to wait any longer to be caned.
I chose to wear a short skirt. You can't blame the teacher for my decision to break the rules regarding skirt length so it shouldn't be allowed to interfere with his administering a legitimate punishment. If he got some thrill from slippering my when I was wearing a short skirt then, provided the punishment was fair for whatever I'd done, I can't reasonably complain.
Absolutely not!
Homosexuality rather blurs the line regarding same/cross sex punishments. Should homosexual teachers be allowed to corporeally punish pupils of their own sex or only those of the opposite sex? Perhaps the question we should ask is "should cross-gender (rather than cross-sex) punishments be allowed?"
Interesting point. I'm not sure of my facts here - these days, do teachers have to declare their sexual orientation when applying for a teaching post? Even if they do now, they definitely wouldn't have been required to do that back in the days when CP in schools was allowed. I'm sure there must have been quite a few closet gays among the teaching profession in those days and, who knows, even some head teachers.
Re: Hand vs Bottom
October 12 2010, 5:28 PM
If the cane was in use today, perhaps the problem would not arise due to girls wearing trousers to school. There would not be a problem in girls bending over in their trousers and receiving the cane across their bottoms like the boys. All the issues about raising skirts, exposing underwear etc would not arise. The equality issues would also be solved!
I'm not sure this would really solve anything. In many, if not all, schools where girls are allowed to wear trousers, it's just an optional alternative to wearing a skirt. Typically, on any given day, you would get a more or less equal mix of girls wearing skirts and girls wearing trousers. For example, that's true of a mixed-sex school quite close to me - I sometimes notice the pupils walking home in the afternoons and, among the girls, there's always a good representation of both types of uniform. Indeed, many girls may possess both and vary what they wear from day to day.
Perhaps Jenny would have a view on girls being caned over trousers.
I'm sure she will! I'll be interested to hear her views as well.
One advantage of trousers would be that it would provide a larger target area for the cane. With a skirt hanging down normally in a bending over position, the lower part of the bum (where it hurts the most and where it woudn't be protected by the knickers) would be off limits as the air gap between skirt and bum would impede the cane strokes too much. So all the strokes would have to be concentrated in a narrower area around the mid-portion of the bum, which might cause more bruising.
Nelly from Lochgelly
Another Lurker
October 12 2010, 7:17 PM
Sorry, I see I stated the wrong town which was in fact Newcastle. Their official 18" x 1 1/2" 50 gram school strap was replaced in 1976 by a new "super strap" which was a 3 tailer, 20" x 1.7" and 55 to 60 grams. Compared to what was being used in Scotland at that time it was little more than a toy. The Scottish tawse was 1.25" wide and 4" longer, with narrower, thicker, heavier and stiffer (and therefore more effective) tails, more than double the thickness and almost 3 times the weight of the "improved" Newcastle implement. I understand that the Newcastle strap was made locally.
The most prolific north of England school strap maker was Cliffe of Walsall, but there were also Marshall of Manchester and G. Ellis and Co., in addition to some unbranded makers. If you would like pictures of school straps by these English makers just let me know.
Was the strap used in the schools you attended and, if so, can you offer a detailed description of the straps you saw?
Those Walsall Straps
October 12 2010, 9:14 PM
Nelly from Lochgelly
. You say:
The most prolific north of England school strap maker was Cliffe of Walsall
I am definitely not out to find fault, but I have to say that Walsall is in the West Midlands, not the north of England - unless of course you're a dyed in the wool southerner, when anything north of Watford Gap tends to be 'here be dragons' northern territory! I trust you're not, with a name like that!
Like some areas in the north of England Walsall also mandated the strap in its schools at times, in this case to support the local leather industry.
You ask:
Was the strap used in the schools you attended and, if so, can you offer a detailed description of the straps you saw?
I don't remember seeing a strap used at any stage of my schooling. The nearest thing to a strap I recall was the size 12 leather soled sandal wielded by my large and muscular Third Form Master at secondary school, a formidable object calculated to reduce most 12 year old boys to tears when applied while touching toes. Happily, being a good little lad, I escaped that particular experience!
Strap sizes and weights
October 12 2010, 9:18 PM
Nelly's stats seem about right.
Leather thickness is traditionally measured in ounces per square foot. By convention, one ounce equals 1/64 inch in thickness corresponding to a relative density of about 0.77. It is easy to calculate the approximate weight from the dimensions of the strap and the density of leather.
Natural bovine leather rarely exceeds 10 or 12 oz. One quarter inch thick = 16 ounce leather.
The leather can be filled with wax or oil, and lignin can be incorporated into the tanning process, all of which would increase the density. The leather can also be compressed between rollers during the tanning process, reducing the thickness but increasing the density.
Re: Hand vs Bottom
October 12 2010, 9:49 PM
In my local authority in Yorkshire schools had the choice of the strap and the cane . Mine , having a Scottish Headmistress, used the former. Indeed she used a three tailed brown tawse I remember that quite clearly
...in fact having posted about the experience I am unlikely to forget it .
The authority allowed teachers to use their own straps , I understand because there were a good number of Scottish recruits.
That skirts v trousers debate
October 12 2010, 9:56 PM
. You said:
In many, if not all, schools where girls are allowed to wear trousers, it's just an optional alternative to wearing a skirt. Typically, on any given day, you would get a more or less equal mix of girls wearing skirts and girls wearing trousers.
While I am sure your first statement is still true in general I recall over the past couple of years a number of newspaper articles about schools which, due to the impossibility of preventing girls from wearing ridiculously short skirts, have mandated trousers as school uniform, either for all girls or for the offending age groups. Google has failed to find me one from my own paper, but
here's one
from the Guardian.
As regards your second point, maybe it depends on the mix of girls attending a school. I've commented here previously when this subject arose about a local mixed school I have to fight my way past to get to the supermarket. After several years where the vast majority of the girls wore trousers, with few skirt wearers, the situation suddenly reversed itself over a fairly short period and has continued in the new format for the last couple of years. I presume some form of peer pressure was responsible, since it appears that both trousers and skirts are still permissible.
Re: Hand vs Bottom
October 12 2010, 10:23 PM
Just what is the point of this thread, entertaining though it is in parts, with some distinguished contributors to boot(don't worry, folks, that's metaphorically speaking!)?
Surely any instrument, strap or cane or bloody licorice strip, is bound to be worse across the hand, for two blindingly obvious reasons:
1) It's on bare flesh every time
2) Most people I know, men or women, have much less flesh, muscle or celluite across the palms of their hands than across any part of their buttocks.
The only exception to the rule would be a hand-strapping or caning teacher who indulged in bowsie-wowsie love-taps on an errant pupil. If there was one or more of them about, please let's hear more & make this thread a little more relevant to reality.
Perhaps there's an intriguing argument about cane v strap on the hand or on the bottom, but not hand v bottom.
Hands v Bottom
October 14 2010, 12:52 AM
On the question of girls tending to be caned on their hands one wonders if any serious injuries occurred due to mis-hits.
There have been reports of injuries caused by caning on the hand. Prof n mentioned one case
and posted a statement of medical opinion
Perhaps Jenny would have a view on girls being caned over trousers.
In practice, a plain skirt didn't seem to have much effect, if anything it was slightly worse for the reasons
gave in his post of October 12 2010, 5:28 PM. Trousers would remove any problems of skirts impeding the cane and any modesty issues.
Most UK schools now allow girls to wear trousers and some, I believe, insist on it. I do think that, where girls have a choice of skirt or trousers, boys should have the same choice. Whether any boys would avail themselves of the right to wear a skirt is irrelevant, they should have the freedom to do so.
Re: Hand vs Bottom
October 14 2010, 1:29 AM
I'm not sure I follow you here. Why would it have been worse, and even cruel, to be caned separately? You wouldn't necessarily have had to wait any longer to be caned.
I wasn't thinking about having to wait. He and I were caught "out of bounds" together. I used that term the first time I mentioned the incident so I've stuck with it. Readers more familiar with my posts probably already know that it refers to more than just our geographical location.
The way I see it is that we were "misbehaving"
together so it seems only right that we were punished together. There was something comforting about being punished as a group. The moral support and camaraderie prevented the feeling of isolation which makes a punishment worse. In that specific case, isolating us like that by caning us separately would, in my view, have been cruel.
Interesting point. I'm not sure of my facts here - these days, do teachers have to declare their sexual orientation when applying for a teaching post?
I don't know. Personally I don't think it's relevant. All teachers, regardless of their sex, gender, sexual orientation, or anything else, should act professionally towards their charges. I don't care whether a person is straight, gay or bi. so long as they don't act inappropriately. Even then, it's only the action that matters, not the sexual drive behind it.
Re: Hand vs Bottom
October 14 2010, 6:57 AM
Having been on interview panels for teachers I can confirm that discrimination on the grounds of sexual leanings would be unacceptable.
As much as possible standard questions are asked plus one or two related to the candidates teaching experiences.
The only thing that could effect it is that you are considering whether a teacher is the best available for the post on offer and personality will come into it and how the person will fit into the team.This is often the case when abilities are equally good
Clearly a persons may give a clue in their answers and the question the interview panel would decide where their overall personality is the best for the school in relation to the other candidates taking into accounts the skills on offer
hand caning
October 18 2010, 5:46 AM
Hand caning is dangerous.There is always a danger of damaging the metacarpal bones Why cane hand when nature has provided buttocks,well cushioned and ideal to receive cane with least injury.
Re: Hand vs Bottom
October 19 2010, 8:25 PM
In his new biography, TV conjurer Derren Brown mentions being slippered at primary school. He had to go and find the headmistress, where she was teaching a class, and as he puts it "ask to be slippered". He had to formally hold out his hand, and was whacked on the palm with his own running shoe. I've never heard of formal hand-slippering being used in an english school before. I bet there are all sorts of "traditions" which we have never heard of. By the way, I NEVER go into bookshops and check the early chapters of celebrity biographies to see if they were caned or not. But Nicholas Parson got six of the best on his bum in front of the class for mimicking a teacher.
Hands Vs Bottom
October 31 2010, 7:21 AM
Sound of hand violently striking naked buttocks is alluring and always etched in the memory of the spanked.
Hands v buttocks
November 4 2010, 9:51 AM
Physical punishment on the hands is very dangerous, and also would make it difficult for the pupil to work with his/her hands for the rest of day or longer. Whereas application of the cane,. or tawse to the bottom is more painful, and therefore more effective. I received the tawse and the cane regularly whilst at school from age 11 to age 17, then when I was in the final year was allowed to apply them to other boys. I know it hurts a lot, especially when applied to the bare or over just p.e. shorts. And makes riding a bike or walking home afterwards a concentrating experience.
Re: Hand vs Bottom
November 4 2010, 1:45 PM
We were always Tawsed on the non writing hand if it was an offence in class.
Taking 2 or more strokes on the one hand was a lot worse than sharing the sting/burn on both.
Out of class they tended to tawse you on both hands as 2 strokes were very much the norm for minor offences.6 strokes were always given 3 on each hand.6 strokes were always givin in private by the Head or his deputies of which he had 3.
Being sentenced to 6 of the belt was always teryfying as you had to wait maybe more than a day or 2 for sentence to be dished out.
Hands Vs Bottoms
November 4 2010, 8:43 PM
Just 2 quick ones from me:
Hand caning/strapping was used primarily because of decency. One could not be accused of indecency using such punishments; bottoms however, especially bare, could lead to problems.
Nottingham Strap:
The strap was indeed used in Nottinham schools. There is a very old strap in the Nottinham School Musuem. I remember seeing it in the Eighties, displayed in a glass case. It was thin, 2 tails and very thick. Est' length around 24 inches.
Check it out.
That Nottingham school strap again!
November 4 2010, 11:43 PM
. You said above:
The strap was indeed used in Nottinham schools. There is a very old strap in the Nottinham School Musuem. I remember seeing it in the Eighties, displayed in a glass case. It was thin, 2 tails and very thick. Est' length around 24 inches.
I didn't know we had a Nottingham School Museum, it doesn't Google. There is a Nottingham Schools Museum Service, but that's not quite the same thing. You're not by any chance in the US are you, where there does appear to be a Nottingham with a school museum
If indeed you are referring to Nottingham UK, I'd be interested to know where the museum you visited was. However, if you look back at my post
you will see that I didn't say the strap wasn't used in Nottingham and Notts schools. Just about every CP implement you can think of was used in those schools at some time or other. What I said was that I didn't believe there was an official (ie LEA mandated) Nottingham school strap. I still don't think there was, but I'm open to verifiable correction.
Doctor Dominum
Re: Hand vs Bottom
November 4 2010, 11:51 PM
I won't swear to it, but I believe I saw a school museum set up at the... Brewhouse Museum, I think it was, on my last trip to the UK. I'm fairly sure that was Nottingham - not a full stand alone school museum, but part of a larger museum.
Re: Hand vs Bottom
November 5 2010, 4:24 AM
You are absolutely correct
Doctor Dominum
! The Brewhouse Yard Museum apparently contains an Edwardian Schoolroom and other displays relative to the life of children in Nottingham, as well as much else. Whether it contains an official Nottingham school strap is not stated. I'm ashamed to say that the last time I visited Brewhouse Yard they were probably still brewing there, and I'd have been nipping into The Trip to Jerusalem for an illicit schoolboy pint! I must try to visit again some time. Come to think of it I could get quite close on the Tram!
Re: Hand vs Bottom
November 6 2010, 4:52 AM
I have never been to the Brewhouse Yard museum, at least as far as I can remember. I've certainly been to Nottingham Castle next door many times and quite recently as well.
I'll have to wander in there and check out the Nottingham strap.I was not aware that the strap was ever used in Nottinghamshire schools, just slippers and canes! Perhaps they could open a section on schools in the sixties complete with corporal punishment instruments and genuine punishment books.
I actually think that many children today would be quite surprised at the amount of corporal punishment that occured just in their parents and grandparents lifetimes.
Re Nottinghamshire schools , I was surprised to hear that my local comprehensive, Gedling School, is closing, or there are at least proposals to close it. It didn't get a very good OFSTED report last time but the pupils seem well behaved and it has over 500 pupils on a very large site with its own football pitches etc. I haven't seen all the details but I wonder if they will amalgamate it with another school as I cannot imagine that they will want to leave the site empty.
Re: Hand vs Bottom
November 8 2010, 10:06 AM
. I trust that you'll let us know if you do visit the Brewhouse Yard Museum scholastic displays, especially if you locate the strap. What it says on the description of the strap would be particularly interesting. I have to say that it is unlikely I'll be visiting the Museum in the near future!
Like you I have never heard of a strap being used in Nottingham or Nottinghamshire schools, though I've no doubt some teacher used one at some school in the district at some time on an unofficial basis for classroom punishments. Hopefully if there is a strap the description will say where and when it was used.
I too was surprised that Gedling School may close. I guess 500 pupils is too small to be cost effective by modern comprehensive school standards, but it is difficult to believe that such an excellent site wouldn't be kept as a school of some sort. Unless of course the council have already had an offer from a developer!
You say:
I actually think that many children today would be quite surprised at the amount of corporal punishment that occured just in their parents and grandparents lifetimes.
Well I'm well and truly in the 'grandparent' age group, indeed in some modern families I'm probably older than the great-grandparents!
I don't believe there will be many people of either sex up to 10 years younger than me who didn't encounter or receive corporal punishment at some stage in their schooling. Most of the males, and a fair proportion of the females will have received rather more than I did!
Re: Hand vs Bottom
November 8 2010, 4:47 PM
Another Lurker
The situation at Gedling school is very puzzling. I do not know any parents who send their children there. I only know a neighbour who sends her daughter to the primary school, and another couple whose children go to my old school in Arnold which is two miles away. There is a huge divide on geographical grounds between Arnold and Gedling , namely that there is a very steep hill between the two areas, and I mean a very steep hill which would make it very difficult for pupils from my area to go to my old school,at least easily, and there is no direct bus route.
I cannot remember Gedling School in my day , so I assume it must have been a Secondary Modern School, despite the fact it was so close. There is virtually nothing about it on Friends Reunited and it was opened in 1957. Almost all the houses surrounding the school , including my own , must have been built after 1957. There is the old village of Gedling and a council estate which looks early fifties, but 90% of the area is owner occupied and looks 1965 plus.
The school now have banners outside " Save Our School"
The football pitches are used by adult teams at the weekend . There is no way the council will bulldoze the site. I have not been able to get any more information about this at present , but will make enquiries
Re: Hand vs Bottom
November 11 2010, 7:10 AM
It seems that the reason for the proposed closure of Gedling School is due to falling pupil numbers. There is another school in Gedling, Carlton-le Willows, which was a former grammar school as well as my old school in Arnold which are regarded as better schools.
I did see two schoogirls smoking in school uniform the other day and another girl asked me to buy her cigarettes from the shop recently. All automatic caning offences in my day!
Re: Hand vs Bottom
November 12 2010, 2:01 AM
. Yes, I thought that might be it. In modern comprehensives it seems to be very much a numbers game. A roll of 2000+ and you're well and truly safe. 1000+ and you're probably safe. 500 or less, absolutely no hope, unless closure would present very substantial problems such as alternative schools too far away.
You say above:
I did see two schoogirls smoking in school uniform the other day and another girl asked me to buy her cigarettes from the shop recently. All automatic caning offences in my day!
Quite right too, six of the best every time, though (and here's the on topic bit
) on the bottom rather than on the hand, which would be unnecessarily harsh. Even my extremely esteemed fellow contributor Jenny, who certainly wasn't readily converted to the path of righteousness by corporal punishment as a schoolgirl, has said
that if she'd been caned harder for smoking at an earlier stage in her school career she might have given it up!
Re: Hand vs Bottom
November 12 2010, 3:48 AM
There are petitions starting up to save Gedling school. It will be interesting to see what the local MP, Vernon Coaker, makes of it. Now he is in opposition he will probably go for saving the school whereas before he would have had to support closure.
Some years ago in London , in Twickenham , a girl in school uniform asked me for a cigarette. I obliged but told her that in my day she would have been caned for smoking in the street. She seemed to get quite excited at the prospect! I did not of course specify whether it would have been on her hand or bottom. I think the school was Orleans or something like that which did have a history of caning in the good old days.
Re: Hand vs Bottom
November 14 2010, 4:47 AM
Hi Declan, you say above:
Some years ago in London , in Twickenham , a girl in school uniform asked me for a cigarette. I obliged but told her that in my day she would have been caned for smoking in the street. She seemed to get quite excited at the prospect!
I was going to say that you must bear a charmed life in that Mr Plod would be only too eager to feel your collar for supplying tobacco products to a minor and attempting to deprave and corrupt her to boot, what with you being in the Civil Service at the time an' all! Always a good nick, a Civil Servant!
However I was surprised to find that while a shop keeper can be prosecuted for selling tobacco to a minor, you, I and any other adult not in the retail tobacco trade are free to ply kids with cigarettes completely without limit! As for the other charge, clearly you were merely attempting to supplement the school's History syllabus (if they do history at Mathematics, Computing and Languages specialist colleges, which Orleans Park School, Twickenham appears to be) not to induct her into BDSM practices!
And on the subject of BDSM practices, I was astounded to discover that the (quite well regarded) University I briefly honoured with my presence many years ago now has an official student union society known as Fetsoc, short for Fetish Society, wherein student members earnestly indulge in said BDSM practices on designated evenings in a room in the Union building. Their stall at Fresher's Week looked a hoot! It certainly wasn't like that in my day!
Re: Hand vs Bottom
November 14 2010, 3:09 PM
Another Lurker
I'm not that concerned about giving a girl the odd cigarette, but I perhaps ought to be more careful about suggesting that they should be caned. I don't make a habit of doing this though. It would certainly be nice to see some of them in their very tight black trousers bending over for a good caning. I think the instances of smoking in the street or asking passers by to buy them cigarettes would stop at once.
Interesting that your old University now has a fetish society. I remember many years ago that at a London University they were having a " Sponsered Spanking" event. You and a partner would pay for the privilege of spanking each other, and perhaps there were other girls there only too willing to be spanked for a good cause. The reason it made the news was that some feminists opposed the event, but I'm sure it went ahead.
The fact that your University openly has a fetish society must mean that this kind of thing is becoming much more open, and more people must be willing to admit that they enjoy caning etc. Anything that reduces the taboo element must be welcomed. I'm sure the internet has played a large part in this , with people realising that so many others enjoy this subject.
Re: Hand vs Bottom
November 16 2010, 2:51 AM
. We seem to be chatting away quite happily here without causing anyone any offence, and indeed by saying
It would certainly be nice to see some of them in their very tight black trousers bending over for a good caning. I think the instances of smoking in the street or asking passers by to buy them cigarettes would stop at once.
you give us an excuse to remain on topic, even if only briefly. Certainly Mrs Beale-Buss and Jenny, authorities from both ends of the cane, seem to agree that in the case of girls caning can be an effective deterrent to smoking in some circumstances. I said
in my very first 'decorated' post in this estimable Forum:
On a more general note, it strikes me that the vast majority of girls now seem to wear trousers to school. If corporal punishment was still extant in schools not only would smacked legs be obsolete, but one of the more 'delicate' aspects of punishing girls would no longer pose a problem. No need to lift skirts to administer a sucessful caning, they could just bend over like the lads!
And so (here's the on-topic bit) the myriad problems with skirts which beset caning girls on the bottom and which sometimes dictated no caning, or caning on the hand instead, have been solved by your aforesaid tight black trousers. Finally, at least as regards the fair sex, an effective panacea for the use of the noxious weed is within our grasp!
Two problems though. Lots of schools still have skirts as part of their uniform, including heavily pleated ones and thick kilts, and anyway we in the UK abandoned the cane in schools many years ago.
Sadly the path of human progress never did run smoothly!
Best not to refer to the University where I reported the Fetsoc as my University. Although we parted amicably it was well before I took my degree and I don't think they were particularly sorry to see me go!
I was amused to read that the Fetsoc suffers from a shortage of dom(me)s. Apparently only three to be found. If the photographs on their web page are anything to go by they have an excess of what I believe are termed 'subs', most of them young women! Would-be mature students please form an orderly queue!
Nottingham School Museum
November 29 2010, 11:06 PM
Hi Another Lurker,
Sorry for the delay in replying, I'd forgotton I had ever posted here.
Well, there is/was definitely some kind of museum. Thinking back, it was I think, near to the castle and it may have been part of another museum. I seem to remember some school desks, blackboard on an easle and various exibits. One of which was the strap. needless to say, it was the one exibit that really drew my attention.
This strap was no more than an inch wide and had 2 tails. It was made from very thick leather. It definitely wasn't a Lochgelly so it was probably made in or around Walsall. The strap was black in colour probably due to age as it was Victorian.
Sorry, that's all I know.
Nottingham strap
January 19 2011, 1:52 PM
Only just caught up with this page. The Collector's Guide to the School Strap (reviewed on my site at
) mentions at p.94 (yes really) a heavy Nottingham tawse and gives the dimensions. There is an anecdotal mention of its use at an unnamed boys' school, where it was "usually applied to hands and sometimes clothed behinds".
Re: Nottingham Strap
January 19 2011, 9:56 PM
Thank you
Mr Farrell
, and indeed
(I'd overlooked your post, my apologies if you still look in). I really must get myself down to the Brewhouse Yard museum and have a look. I'm afraid I tend to neglect what's on my own doorstep!
Nottingham Strap
January 20 2011, 12:31 AM
Hi Another Lurker and Collin.
The straps mentioned in Harold Hoff's book, are certainly not of the same type as I saw in the museum.
Now, if my aging memory serves me well, it was I would say, about 24 inches long but only around an inch wide, cut into 2 x 1/2 inch tails. It was very thick, at least 10mm or so. It was almost black in colour, probably due to age as it was from the Victorian era.
The straps in the book are listed as being 2 1/2 inches wide.
The strap in the museum was in a glass case. The only other I have seen similar to this is on Ebay about 5 years ago, sold by a regular cane seller from whome I have purchased many canes.
The museum may well have been the Brewhouse one, but all I can remember is it was quite close to the castle.
It would be great if Another Lurker could get down there and perhaps photograph the said strap.
Perhaps we should all thank him in anticipation.
Hands versus Bottoms
January 20 2011, 12:41 AM
Well, like it or not, hand caning was probably the most common punishment along with leg - smacking - for juniors and girls.
There is nothing wrong with caning hands and no injury should be caused if common sense is used. Firstly, an appropiate cane should be selected: the cane should light and supple. This will sting without damage. No way should a heavy, stiff, thuddy cane be used.
Secondly, cautin should be used, excessive force should not be used. The idea is to sting the hands not injure them.
Hands are extremely durable and will not bruise as easily as bottoms. I have never known of any injuries being caused and certainly not swelling.
How to Make Rattan Canes
January 22 2011, 10:08 PM
EHow.com has it all.
I found this by accident:
See, it's simples!
"Making Canes"
January 23 2011, 7:48 AM
It seems to me that nature has done 99.99% of the work when it comes to
canes. All we have to do is select a suitable piece and cut it to length. Ditto lettices, rocks and trees - they all come ready made.
The best rattan comes with a natural glassy silica surface which needs no sealing or other treatment.
To ICU re. hand caning.
January 23 2011, 9:01 AM
The headmaster of our primary school used what was known as a 'lawyer' cane.
I can't guarantee that this is the correct spelling.
It was a fairly thick cane, maybe 1cm in diameter.
It was certainly flexible, and not rigid as bamboo is.
The cane was applied to out fingertips, rather than the hand itself, I imagine because it was thought to produce more pain.
The first two cuts received hurt somewhat,but it was not really a severe pain.
It seemed to be like a shock somehow,it is difficult to explain it.
It was like a numb sensation.
After that, any further cuts didn't hurt at all.
They just felt like sort of dull thuds.
It certainly produced bruising on the fingertips, which you would proudly show off in the playground.
In my opinion, caning on the hands was counter-productive.
You were frightened of it until you got it,and then it was not a fear anymore.
It actually made me a lot bolder than I had been before,because of this.
Caning on the bottom,by way of contrast,was an agonising punishment.
It was worlds apart from hand caning.
Boys feared the headmaster's cane landing on their bottoms at my secondary school.
I have to admit however, that going by other reflections that I have read,our headmaster's canings were exceptionally severe.
Re: Hand vs Bottom
January 23 2011, 5:25 PM
The headmaster of our primary school used what was known as a 'lawyer' cane.
I can't guarantee that this is the correct spelling.
It was a fairly thick cane, maybe 1cm in diameter.
It was certainly flexible, and not rigid as bamboo is.
That is really interesting OZGeorge. Yes, you have the spelling correct, but I had not realised that particular variety of rattan had been used for school canes (there are four species that have the name lawyer cane, but it is probably
calamus australis
I'd like to ask a few questions, if I may?: Can you tell me if the cane was straight and smooth or ridged? A pale yellow colour or brown? Was the cane used in your secondary school similar?
Thanks for the information.
American Way
Re: Hand vs Bottom
January 29 2011, 9:20 PM
1880 girl of 10 and boy of 1889 boy of 11 gained little sympathy for "palmy".
Nellie Coull could give lessons to Anne Shirley on her first day on Prince Edward's Island. Some students delight in the battle of the wills and winning not so for "palmy". Prince Edward Island welcomed the strap as the chosen instrument of correction. BTW. Would our astute readers of this estimable Forum comment on whether the caning of Megan Follows of Susannah Hoffmann real? It would be considered bad form to film the actual blow but the timing of the grimace with the blow seemed authentic but of course she could be wearing gloves? Has such battles of the will been observed or experienced here?
To hcj.
February 5 2011, 10:15 PM
Thank you for the interesting post re. lawyer cane.
I had not realised that it was a species of rattan.
The canes used in primary school,were a sort of dull,yellowy colour,smooth, and appeared polished,but perhaps that was a finish put on by the maker.
There were ridges at intervals along its length,like bamboo in a way,but these were only very slightly raised and not at all prounonced.
At my secondary school, I think it was a similar material,but it looked 'wickeder', if I can put it that way,thicker and longer and seemed more flexy.
At the time,I was so petrified that I was to receive that cane on my poor little 12 year old botty,that I wasn't really studing the characteristics of the fearsome instrument with any degree of concentration,as I had other things to think about.
American Way
Palm vs. Posterior
February 20 2011, 9:58 PM
1968 Dublin. Why would there be a controversy about extending from the palm to the posterior (I love alliteration). Would it be akin to modesty issues in Malaysia where the boys received it posterior and the girls the palms.
prof n
appalled at the hands for safety reasons but for generations the nuns have used that as the prime means of corporally punishing students and I have never heard of any medical problems.
Re: Hand vs Bottom
February 20 2011, 10:41 PM
Hi American Way
Renee and prof n appalled at the hands for safety reasons but for generations the nuns have ,used that as the prime means of corporally punishing students and I have never heard of any medical problems.
Caning on the hands can cause problems. The LEA who ran the school I taught in(below) had a ready made offer from their lawyers for damaged fingers etc, subject to no admission of liability and a confidentiality gag ....of course !!!!!!Teachers were aware of the policy
This was posted by me in April 2010 on this very issue
Interestingly in the school I subbed in where caning was on the hand, the LEA was dealing with a case of a broken finger from a class caning
My position is this . There are two targets for cp. One is perfectly safe, one is less so. Why should we take any risk, after all these are children.
That broken finger was someone's child , what would you have said to the parent? Or come to that the child
As to strapping Dr. Dominum wrote some time ago about a major court settlement in Australia for damage sustained
These cases may be infrequent , but they do occur .
American Way
Boys posteriors Girls Palms Jamaica
February 20 2011, 11:45 PM
Again the target on a gender basis occurs in Jamaica, whose Education Minister is proposing to ban imminently. Although I posted Cherice punishment of hands it is interesting I didn't realize that she mentioned a tire used on hands in school corporal punishment. I would assume that would mean a strap made of a tire. Although not on the receiving end she saw it used but its days are numbered. Once instruments of correction are taken out of the toolbox of options it rarely returns. The ban makes the USA stick out more and the Deep South as the last vestige of SCP in the Western Hemisphere. The Asiatic countries are following suit. These changes are often initiated because of an abusive incident. In Jamaica it was a damage eye that elevated the concern. It has always been a subject of debate; just "Google News" archives. As you know I am no fan of hands as a target
but for some reason its the target of preference for girls in Jamaica. No one is hit like the stoic Cherice in the last link. Obviously, she is a paid model. Culturally, the PDF shows the due deference that has been a subject pro/con of late in this estimable Forum. There is an age limit and stroke difference in deference to gender. I'm sure this will not be appealing to some of our posters.
Hand Vs Bottom
March 20 2011, 5:51 AM
It as one Lord Kilvert who said in 1878,"Were bottoms so formed that they may be whipped?Or,why since the foundation of the world has been this point of the body,has been universally chosen to suffer chastisement?". I feel that striking buttocks is less harmful than doing so on any other part of the body.
American Way
Re: Hand vs Bottom
March 20 2011, 11:04 PM
Not only is the safety issue there is the matter of modesty. Modesty is in the eye of the beholder. I would hope these female teachers that are outraged that their delicate bottoms extend the same courtesy to their charges. The Tanzania teachers being caned appeared earlier here.
A female teacher will only get caning on her palm. But I pity the male teachers for they have lie down on the floor to be caned on their backside.
American Way
Re: Hand vs Bottom
August 18 2011, 9:35 PM
Since 1978 act there were policies in place regarding school corporal punishment that were gender specific. Tracy Goddard, TV host, born in 1954 was no stranger to the practice.
Culture of classroom including discipline: (cited in the Child Rights Information Network (CRIN2000)
Tanzanias Education Act of 1978 allows for the use of corporal punishment in school, but with several limiting provisions in place as follows:
Corporal Punishment may only be used as a last resort and only for grave circumstances
Its use may be authorized in writing by the Head-teacher
No more six strokes (with a light, flexible stick) are allowed
Only female teachers may punish female students
All punishments and reasons for it must be recorded in a special book
At school in Africa, I had learned what physical punishment means. You did something wrong, you were given a smack for it. There was no emotional display by whoever was smacking you.
American Way
US State Department 2010 Human Rights Tanzania
August 18 2011, 10:26 PM
Tanzania follow up.
Tanzania Teachers' Union in Shinyanga Region announced it was suing the government over an incident in which a Sungusungu unit caned four teachers in public for being late to a parent-teacher meeting. The teachers dropped their suit after being compensated TZS 100,000 ($68) and relocated to other districts.
Re: Hand vs Bottom
August 22 2011, 8:13 PM
In my day I carried out many canings on boys bottoms and a few on the hands. It was much harder, and indeed more dangerious for the punil to be caned on the hand rather than the bottom. For hand caning the area that could safely be struk was only about 3 cms wide, otherwise it got the fingers or thumb. True, teachers held the pupils wrist but on seeing the cane come a sudden tug could move the hand a few centimetres and the stroke land on the fingers. Given on the bottom the chance of injury was almost nil. Many reasons, certainly in the state schools as to why the hands rather than the bottom were caned exist. i would be happy to comment on these if they are of interest. Looking at records, a lot of claims exist for damages caused to boys hands from caning, but none or few for caning on the bottom. The claims against teachers for caning on the bottom tended to be for bruising or excessive punishment which was another issue.
American Way
Re: Hand vs Bottom
August 27 2011, 11:56 PM
I do not like to start threads. Don't understand why TWP does? As I have said so often: an observation is not a censure.
By the same token, I do not like to post links under two different thread but I do not think it is altogether inappropriate to link this under hand vs. bottom. I am curious how does the Alameda strap compare to different ones over there? I am amused with the west coast immigration from Chinese registration certificates. They must be even more detailed than the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) ones now. They do have Asiatics category now. I have compared anecdotally their behavior demographically to other ethnic and religious groups and they compare favorably.
KK, as well as others, have criticized my "comprehendibility". Have I improved over time? I am now using commas. I don't have a hippopotamus skin so be gentle? I do learn, for example how to contract URL to CLICK. Than you, for whoever did that?
Commas and reform
August 31 2011, 10:26 PM
American Way,
I am most glad that you are attempting to reform and commend you for it. Unfortunately, I had not noticed, perhaps because your previous postings varied, apparently randomly, from near perfect and interesting to something rather less than this. Be not discouraged. I will be keeping a close eye on your future work. You have uncovered some valuable stuff.
American Way
Re: Hand vs Bottom
September 1 2011, 12:26 AM
Thanks. Your OCR copy/paste length of 100 words or a 1,000 words are always of value.
hand vs bottom
September 1 2011, 8:29 AM
i was never caned on the hand, just on the bottom in secondary school from the age of 12. i can only imagine there is a world of difference between hand and bottom. the hand i believe there would be a risk of injury as it has been said before. seeing the cane come down would make you try to pull away, its only natural, even if the teacher is holding it. the bottom of course is padded and once bent over you are facing away , so you cant see whats happening. there is also a ritual to a bottom caning and you even participate in the punishment, ie bending over, raising the back of blazer and steading ones self with hands on the knees. caning at my school was only done by the headmaster and no one else so it was made a big punishment (the last resort).yes my bottom stung like crazy and i tried to avoid any more canings but to no avail. i had bright tramlines which took a few weeks to fade but there was certainly no damage. i also seem to remember the cane in his hand just before taking up my position and the cane being smooth as if it had been sanded down, this would have been for safty reasons, no knuckles or ridges. the item of punishment specialy made for the job. i dont believe my old headmaster enjoyed caning nor looking at bottoms bending before him and he had seen many over the years.
September 17 2011, 5:06 AM
I really need to know that, is there anything else besides caning??
Re: Question
September 17 2011, 7:38 AM
I don't recall seeing your name here before, so if this is the first time you have posted here may I please say a personal welcome to the Forum.
You ask:
I really need to know that, is there anything else besides caning??
An unusual question, and I'll have to make certain assumptions in answering it.
I'll assume that you mean are there any other forms of school corporal punishment besides caning. I'll also assume you mean school corporal punishment in general, rather than school corporal punishment in use in a particular place at a particular time.
Here's a few methods to be going on with:
The paddle
: The pupil is required to assume a bending posture, perhaps over a desk or leaning braced against a wall, and is hit on the bottom from one up to several times with a (usually oblong) flat (usually wooden) implement with a handle. Here is a picture from an American True Life TV series, showing a young woman deciding whether to opt for a paddling or detention for being repeatedly late for school.
She is examining the paddle with which she was later allegedly given 3 swats (off-screen) by the Principal of her school. Other pictures in the series may be found by
clicking here
. The paddle is in use as a punishment in some schools in some American States. We have a Teacher from the US who occasionally uses a paddle posting in the Forum.
The Slipper
: The slipper was a common classroom punishment in England in the days when school corporal punishment was legal. It was called by other names, such as 'the dap', in some parts of the country. It was a rubber soled gym shoe (like an old fashioned tennis shoe and nothing like a modern training shoe). Generally a large size, male 12 or 13, was used. Sometimes pupils were hit on the palm of the outstretched hand, but more commonly they had to bend over and touch their toes, or at least grasp their ankles, and were hit on the bottom, usually from one to six times.
The Tawse
: This was the usual corporal punishment in Scottish schools when corporal punishment was legal. It was a leather strap, split into two or more 'tails' at one end, and usually a shaped handle for easy grip at the other. They varied from fairly thin, very flexible and not very heavy up to very thick, almost rigid, and quite heavy. In general the thicker and heavier they were, the more painful. In Scotland they were used as a regular classroom punishment, administered to the palms of the outstretched hands, sometimes along the length of the hand, sometimes across the hand. Both Teachers and pupils generally referred to the punishment as 'the belt'. Schools in some parts of England also used the tawse and sometimes for boys it was used on the bottom - allegedly.
Please ask if you require further information. I, or someone else, will be happy to direct you to some of the dramatic, and undoubtedly authentic accounts we have here by people who have been in receipt of the above punishments. We can also probably find accounts by people who have administered them. Other people may tell you of even more corporal punishment methods used in schools. There are lots of them, including of course striking with the flat of the hand.
American Way
Fancy Nancy Update.
September 17 2011, 4:46 PM
In the USA suspensions are taken into consideration when applying to colleges. Disciplinary records are fair game for college admission officials but are not handed over in certain states except of course for suspensions that involve taking days of the school calendar. Her tardiness led to a Saturday Detention and rather than take the full day she was given the option of sitting through a morning detention presumably on a very sore bottom. She must be able to find the time to leave the dorm and get to class on time as a track star. My apologies for thinking she was in the family way for her use of the word baby. She wants to be Oprah Winfrey for a day she had her smashing television debut where she showed her courage to submit.
correction to "a question"
September 18 2011, 11:18 AM
I would like to correct the statement made about the slipper and what was used. It is true that in many cases it was a gym shoe that was used, but not always. Some teachers, and certainly teachers who had boys sent to them for the slipper, often had a proper house slipper. These had no grip on the sole, so more of the slipper made contact with the boys bottom. The more of the slipper that made contact the more it stung. It would have a leather sole so this stung more than the rubber sole on the gym shoe.These slippers tended to have the top cut off which left a more flexible sole. This flexibility prevented the slipper bruising like the gym shoe and so the boys bottom could be whacked harder. If parents found out boys had got the slipper it was very rare that by home time the slipper marks were still on the boys bottom, as they vanished quickly. However, if a gym shoe was used it was inclined at times to bruise. If a parent saw red slipper marks on boys bottom they were not likely to complain but if it was bruised they would. The proper houseslipper was ideal for whacking a boys bottom when naughty. It left less marks and stung more. If a boy got one of these slippers across his bare bottom, it would sting more than the cane, but not last so long or leave it marked so much. Indeed, I know some heads in private schools that would have a boys trousers and pants down and use a house slipper on his bare bottom as it was more effective than the cane.
Current Topic -
Hand vs Bottom
Respond to this message
<< Previous Topic
Next Topic >>
Return to Index
Find more forums on Schools
Create your own forum at Network54
Copyright © 1999-2014
. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use
Privacy Statement